6 ms·

Not parent, but I share the ambivalence (at best) or outright negativity (at worst) toward the focus on Rust. It is a question of preference on my part, I don’t

Not parent, but I share the ambivalence (at best) or outright negativity (at worst) toward the focus on Rust. It is a question of preference on my part, I don’t like the language and I do not want to see it continue to propagate through the software I use and want to control/edit/customize. This is particularly true of having Rust become entrenched in the depths of the open-source software I use on my personal and work machines. For me, Rust is just another dependency to add to a system and it also pulls along another compiler and the accompanying LLVM. I’m not going to learn a language that I disagree with strongly on multiple levels, so the less Rust in my open source the more control I retain over my software. So for me the less entrenched Rust remains the more ability I keep to work on the software I use. That said, if Rust is going to continue entrenching itself in the open source software that is widely in use, it should at least be able to be compiled with by the mainline GPL compiler used and utilized by the open source community. Permissive licenses are useful and appreciated in some context, but the GPL’d character of the Linux stack’s core is worth fighting to hold onto. It’s not Rust in open source I have a problem with, it is Rust being added to existing software that I use that I don’t want. A piece of software, open source, written in Rust is equivalent to proprietary software from my perspective. I’ll use it, but I will always prefer software I can control/edit/hack on as the key portions of my stack.

lionkor 10mo ago
> I disagree with strongly on multiple levels Fair enough, but what are those disagreements? I was fully in the camp of not liking it, just because it was shoved down every projects throat. I used it, it turns out its fantastic once you get used to the syntax, and it replaced almost all other languages for me. I just want to know if there are any actual pain points beyond syntax preference. Edit: I partially agree with the compiler argument, but it's open source, and one of the main reasons the language is so fantastic IS the compiler, so I can stomach installing rustc and cargo.
danudey 10mo ago
> I don’t like the language and I do not want to see it continue to propagate through the software I use and want to control/edit/customize. This is how I feel about C/C++; I find Rust a lot easier to reason about, modify, and test, so I'm always happy to see that something I'm interested in is written in Rust (or, to a far lesser extent, golang). > So for me the less entrenched Rust remains the more ability I keep to work on the software I use. For me, the more entrenched Rust becomes the more ability I gain to work on the software I use. > if Rust is going to continue entrenching itself in the open source software that is widely in use, it should at least be able to be compiled with by the mainline GPL compiler used and utilized by the open source community I don't see why this ideological point should have any impact on whether a language is used or not. Clang/LLVM are also open-source, and I see no reason why GCC is better for these purposes than those. Unless you somehow think that using Clang/LLVM could lead to Rust becoming closed-source (or requiring closed-source tools), which is almost impossible to imagine, the benefits of using LLVM outweigh the drawbacks dramatically. > A piece of software, open source, written in Rust is equivalent to proprietary software from my perspective. This just sounds like 'not invented here syndrome'. Your refusal to learn new things does not reflect badly on Rust as a technology or on projects adopting it, it reflects on you. If you don't want to learn new things then that's fine, but don't portray your refusal to learn it as being somehow a negative for Rust. > I will always prefer software I can control/edit/hack on as the key portions of my stack You can control/edit/hack on Rust code, you just don't want to. To be blunt, you're coming across as an old fogey who's set in his ways and doesn't want to learn anything new and doesn't want anything to change. "Everything was fine in my day, why is there all this new fangled stuff?" That's all fine, of course, you don't need to change or learn new things, but I don't understand the mindset of someone who wouldn't want to.
- pessimizer 10mo ago
  >> I don’t like the language and I do not want to see it continue to propagate through the software I use and want to control/edit/customize. > This is how I feel about C/C++; I find Rust a lot easier to reason about, modify, and test, so I'm always happy to see that something I'm interested in is written in Rust (or, to a far lesser extent, golang). You have to do better than "NO U" on this. The comparison to C/C++ is silly, because there is no way you're going to avoid C/C++ being woven throughout your entire existence for decades to come. > I don't see why this ideological point should have any impact on whether a language is used or not. Clang/LLVM are also open-source, and I see no reason why GCC is better for these purposes than those. I hope you don't expect people to debate about your sight and your imagination. You know why people choose the GPL, and you know why people are repulsed by the GPL. Playing dumb is disrespectful. > don't portray your refusal to learn it as being somehow a negative for Rust. But your sight, however, we should be discussing? edit: I really, really like Rust, and I find it annoying that the clearest, most respectful arguments in this little subthread are from the people who just don't like Rust. The most annoying thing is that when they admit that they just don't like it, they're criticized for not making up reasons not to like it. They made it very clear that their main objection to its inclusion in Linux is licensing and integration issues, not taste. The response is name calling. I'm surprised they weren't flagkilled.
  - keybored 10mo ago
    > edit: I really, really like Rust, and I find it annoying that the clearest, most respectful arguments in this little subthread are from the people who just don't like Rust. Keywords right there. People who don’t-like-Rust are the most coddled anti-PL group. To the extent that they can just say: I really need to speak my mind here that I just don’t like it. End of story. I don’t think anyone else feels entitled to complain about exactly nothing. I complain about languages. In the appropriate context. When it is relevant or germane to the topic. A “genius” Rust program running on a supercomputer solving cancer would either get a golf-clap (“I don’t like Rust, but”) or cries that this means that the contagion is irreversibly spreading to their local supercomputer cluster. One thing is people who work on projects where they would have to be burdened by at least (even if they don’t write it themselves) building Rust. That’s practical complaining, if that makes sense. Here people are whining about it entrenching itself in muh OSS.
coldpie 10mo ago
> A piece of software, open source, written in Rust is equivalent to proprietary software from my perspective. Unlike a project's license, this situation is entirely in your control. Rust is just a programming language like any other. It's pretty trivial to pick up any programming language well enough to be productive in a couple hours. If you need to hack on a project, you go learn whatever environment it uses, accomplish what you need to do, and move on. I've done this with Python, Bash, CMake, C++, JavaScript, CSS, ASM, Perl, weird domain-specific languages, the list goes on. It's fine to like some languages more than others (I'd be thrilled if C++ vanished from the universe), but please drop the drama queen stuff. You look really silly.
- IshKebab 10mo ago
  It's pretty disappointing when people like him try to block new technology just because they don't want to learn any more... but there's absolutely no way anyone is going to be productive in Rust in "a couple of hours".
  - throwaway17_17 10mo ago
    Just be clear, it is not a case of I don’t want to learn anymore. That’s actually pretty far from the case. As an example and sticking to programming languages, I am currently putting Koka and Eff through their paces and learning a decent amount about the incorporation of algebraic effects into languages at scale, I’m also working my way through Idris 2’s adoption of Quantitative Type Theory. I genuinely enjoy learning, and particularly enjoy learning in the comp sci field. But, that doesn’t have any bearing on my lack of desire to learn Rust. Several other comments basically demand I justify that dislike, and I may reply, but there is nothing wrong with not liking a language for personal or professional use. I have not taken any action to block Rust’s adoption in projects I use nor do I think I would succeed if I did try. I have occasionally bemoaned the inclusion of Rust in projects I use on forums, but even that isn’t taken well (my original comment as an example).
    - JoshTriplett 10mo ago
      There's nothing wrong with disliking something. It's more that your dislike alone is not going to convince anyone else. Supporting arguments might either result in one or more of 1) people agreeing with you, or 2) you learning something that helps address your concern, or 3) Rust being improved to address your concern.
pdimitar 10mo ago
We are on a fairly technical thread and me coming here, I expect to see interesting technical arguments and counter-arguments. You started your comment with "I don't like the language". I can't find any technical or even legal-like argumentation (there is zero legal encumbering for using Rust AFAIK). Your entire comment is more or less "I dislike Rust". Question to you: what is the ideal imagined outcome of your comment? Do you believe that the Rust community will collectively disband and apologize for rubbing you the wrong way? Do you expect the Linux kernel to undo their decision to stop flagging Rust as an experiment in its code base? Genuine question: imagine you had all the power to change something here; what would you change right away? And, much more interestingly: why? If you respond, can we stick to technical argumentation? "I don't like X" is not informative for any future reader. Maybe expand on your multiple levels of disagreement with Rust?
- throwaway17_17 10mo ago
  I am not certain that technical argumentation is required on many, many threads on HN. In fact, TFA is just a blog post about the concept of compiler backends generally. Also, the comment I replied to was not a technical question so I just wrote the response in the same tone. I will maintain that it is absolutely alright to just dislike a programming language for any reason and those reasons if they exist outside of aesthetics don't have to be well formed or technical. But assuming your assertion of genuineness was intended to mean you want a response to those questions: 1) I had no ideal imagined outcome to writing that comment. The parent asked what the GP meant by not liking Rust but that at least Rust could be compiled by gcc. I was just explaining why it may be preferable to someone that does not use (or in this case "like" Rust) to see it able to be compiled by a GPL piece of software that has been a part of the Linux core for almost all of Linux's existence. As to the rest of that question, of course, I don't think that anyone using/enjoying/designing/supporting Rust in any way would be convinced by anything I think or say (I'm just some guy on HN). 2) If I had the power to change what? The issue with Rust not being able to compile using gcc or more broadly concerning change things regarding Rust? I don't think a list of changes I'd make to Rust is what you wanted, so I'll assume you meant regarding compiling Rust via gcc. If I had the power to change Rust from being only compiled using rustc and moved to primarily gcc based I would. And the why is not particularly interesting, I will always prefer actions and decisions that take mind and market share away from anything that can be used to advance the interest of multi-national conglomerate corporations via permissive licensing of the core technologies of computing. I know that is not a technical argument, but it is the reason I'd make the change. I will assert that such a reason is absolutely valid, but I don't take disagreement with my position to be a character flaw in someone.

lionkor 10mo ago

> I disagree with strongly on multiple levels Fair enough, but what are those disagreements? I was fully in the camp of not liking it, just because it was shoved down every projects throat. I used it, it turns out its fantastic once you get used to the syntax, and it replaced almost all other languages for me. I just want to know if there are any actual pain points beyond syntax preference. Edit: I partially agree with the compiler argument, but it's open source, and one of the main reasons the language is so fantastic IS the compiler, so I can stomach installing rustc and cargo.

danudey 10mo ago

> I don’t like the language and I do not want to see it continue to propagate through the software I use and want to control/edit/customize. This is how I feel about C/C++; I find Rust a lot easier to reason about, modify, and test, so I'm always happy to see that something I'm interested in is written in Rust (or, to a far lesser extent, golang). > So for me the less entrenched Rust remains the more ability I keep to work on the software I use. For me, the more entrenched Rust becomes the more ability I gain to work on the software I use. > if Rust is going to continue entrenching itself in the open source software that is widely in use, it should at least be able to be compiled with by the mainline GPL compiler used and utilized by the open source community I don't see why this ideological point should have any impact on whether a language is used or not. Clang/LLVM are also open-source, and I see no reason why GCC is better for these purposes than those. Unless you somehow think that using Clang/LLVM could lead to Rust becoming closed-source (or requiring closed-source tools), which is almost impossible to imagine, the benefits of using LLVM outweigh the drawbacks dramatically. > A piece of software, open source, written in Rust is equivalent to proprietary software from my perspective. This just sounds like 'not invented here syndrome'. Your refusal to learn new things does not reflect badly on Rust as a technology or on projects adopting it, it reflects on you. If you don't want to learn new things then that's fine, but don't portray your refusal to learn it as being somehow a negative for Rust. > I will always prefer software I can control/edit/hack on as the key portions of my stack You can control/edit/hack on Rust code, you just don't want to. To be blunt, you're coming across as an old fogey who's set in his ways and doesn't want to learn anything new and doesn't want anything to change. "Everything was fine in my day, why is there all this new fangled stuff?" That's all fine, of course, you don't need to change or learn new things, but I don't understand the mindset of someone who wouldn't want to.

pessimizer 10mo ago
>> I don’t like the language and I do not want to see it continue to propagate through the software I use and want to control/edit/customize. > This is how I feel about C/C++; I find Rust a lot easier to reason about, modify, and test, so I'm always happy to see that something I'm interested in is written in Rust (or, to a far lesser extent, golang). You have to do better than "NO U" on this. The comparison to C/C++ is silly, because there is no way you're going to avoid C/C++ being woven throughout your entire existence for decades to come. > I don't see why this ideological point should have any impact on whether a language is used or not. Clang/LLVM are also open-source, and I see no reason why GCC is better for these purposes than those. I hope you don't expect people to debate about your sight and your imagination. You know why people choose the GPL, and you know why people are repulsed by the GPL. Playing dumb is disrespectful. > don't portray your refusal to learn it as being somehow a negative for Rust. But your sight, however, we should be discussing? edit: I really, really like Rust, and I find it annoying that the clearest, most respectful arguments in this little subthread are from the people who just don't like Rust. The most annoying thing is that when they admit that they just don't like it, they're criticized for not making up reasons not to like it. They made it very clear that their main objection to its inclusion in Linux is licensing and integration issues, not taste. The response is name calling. I'm surprised they weren't flagkilled.
- keybored 10mo ago
  > edit: I really, really like Rust, and I find it annoying that the clearest, most respectful arguments in this little subthread are from the people who just don't like Rust. Keywords right there. People who don’t-like-Rust are the most coddled anti-PL group. To the extent that they can just say: I really need to speak my mind here that I just don’t like it. End of story. I don’t think anyone else feels entitled to complain about exactly nothing. I complain about languages. In the appropriate context. When it is relevant or germane to the topic. A “genius” Rust program running on a supercomputer solving cancer would either get a golf-clap (“I don’t like Rust, but”) or cries that this means that the contagion is irreversibly spreading to their local supercomputer cluster. One thing is people who work on projects where they would have to be burdened by at least (even if they don’t write it themselves) building Rust. That’s practical complaining, if that makes sense. Here people are whining about it entrenching itself in muh OSS.

coldpie 10mo ago

> A piece of software, open source, written in Rust is equivalent to proprietary software from my perspective. Unlike a project's license, this situation is entirely in your control. Rust is just a programming language like any other. It's pretty trivial to pick up any programming language well enough to be productive in a couple hours. If you need to hack on a project, you go learn whatever environment it uses, accomplish what you need to do, and move on. I've done this with Python, Bash, CMake, C++, JavaScript, CSS, ASM, Perl, weird domain-specific languages, the list goes on. It's fine to like some languages more than others (I'd be thrilled if C++ vanished from the universe), but please drop the drama queen stuff. You look really silly.

IshKebab 10mo ago
It's pretty disappointing when people like him try to block new technology just because they don't want to learn any more... but there's absolutely no way anyone is going to be productive in Rust in "a couple of hours".
- throwaway17_17 10mo ago
  Just be clear, it is not a case of I don’t want to learn anymore. That’s actually pretty far from the case. As an example and sticking to programming languages, I am currently putting Koka and Eff through their paces and learning a decent amount about the incorporation of algebraic effects into languages at scale, I’m also working my way through Idris 2’s adoption of Quantitative Type Theory. I genuinely enjoy learning, and particularly enjoy learning in the comp sci field. But, that doesn’t have any bearing on my lack of desire to learn Rust. Several other comments basically demand I justify that dislike, and I may reply, but there is nothing wrong with not liking a language for personal or professional use. I have not taken any action to block Rust’s adoption in projects I use nor do I think I would succeed if I did try. I have occasionally bemoaned the inclusion of Rust in projects I use on forums, but even that isn’t taken well (my original comment as an example).
  - JoshTriplett 10mo ago
    There's nothing wrong with disliking something. It's more that your dislike alone is not going to convince anyone else. Supporting arguments might either result in one or more of 1) people agreeing with you, or 2) you learning something that helps address your concern, or 3) Rust being improved to address your concern.

pdimitar 10mo ago

We are on a fairly technical thread and me coming here, I expect to see interesting technical arguments and counter-arguments. You started your comment with "I don't like the language". I can't find any technical or even legal-like argumentation (there is zero legal encumbering for using Rust AFAIK). Your entire comment is more or less "I dislike Rust". Question to you: what is the ideal imagined outcome of your comment? Do you believe that the Rust community will collectively disband and apologize for rubbing you the wrong way? Do you expect the Linux kernel to undo their decision to stop flagging Rust as an experiment in its code base? Genuine question: imagine you had all the power to change something here; what would you change right away? And, much more interestingly: why? If you respond, can we stick to technical argumentation? "I don't like X" is not informative for any future reader. Maybe expand on your multiple levels of disagreement with Rust?

throwaway17_17 10mo ago
I am not certain that technical argumentation is required on many, many threads on HN. In fact, TFA is just a blog post about the concept of compiler backends generally. Also, the comment I replied to was not a technical question so I just wrote the response in the same tone. I will maintain that it is absolutely alright to just dislike a programming language for any reason and those reasons if they exist outside of aesthetics don't have to be well formed or technical. But assuming your assertion of genuineness was intended to mean you want a response to those questions: 1) I had no ideal imagined outcome to writing that comment. The parent asked what the GP meant by not liking Rust but that at least Rust could be compiled by gcc. I was just explaining why it may be preferable to someone that does not use (or in this case "like" Rust) to see it able to be compiled by a GPL piece of software that has been a part of the Linux core for almost all of Linux's existence. As to the rest of that question, of course, I don't think that anyone using/enjoying/designing/supporting Rust in any way would be convinced by anything I think or say (I'm just some guy on HN). 2) If I had the power to change what? The issue with Rust not being able to compile using gcc or more broadly concerning change things regarding Rust? I don't think a list of changes I'd make to Rust is what you wanted, so I'll assume you meant regarding compiling Rust via gcc. If I had the power to change Rust from being only compiled using rustc and moved to primarily gcc based I would. And the why is not particularly interesting, I will always prefer actions and decisions that take mind and market share away from anything that can be used to advance the interest of multi-national conglomerate corporations via permissive licensing of the core technologies of computing. I know that is not a technical argument, but it is the reason I'd make the change. I will assert that such a reason is absolutely valid, but I don't take disagreement with my position to be a character flaw in someone.